Gagetown soldiers charged with drug trafficking

[brihard]

Oh, certainly my comments on sentencing were not an effort to predict a sentence- merely my views on what an appropriate one might be.

In reality, if convicted, they'll probably do a decent spell in federal prison. It just may not be the most appropriate sentence is all.

 

[vonGarvin]

As I've pointed out earlier, a person convicted of trafficking cocaine can face up to life imprisonment.  IF a CF member were to be convicted of a service offense as well as a Drug Control Act (or whatever it's called) offence, then I would assume that they would spend 2 years less a day in DB, then the remainder in a civil institution.

 

[George Wallace]

Oh, certainly my comments on sentencing were not an effort to predict a sentence- merely my views on what an appropriate one might be.

In reality, if convicted, they'll probably do a decent spell in federal prison. It just may not be the most appropriate sentence is all.

Looking back on the Somalia Affair, you can judge some of your questions on the sentence given Kyle Brown and where and when he served it.

 

[niner domestic]

Actually spud, it is part of the crime of trafficking as well as being in possession offences if you are knowingly in the company of someone using drugs or trafficking. You can find yourself being charged along side the guy with the drugs.  I used to speak at my kid's HS for their law class and that was something we covered.  If you are at a party, and there are drugs evident, and you know they are drugs, then you either have to leave or face the consequences of being charged if the party is busted.

 

[brihard]

Looking back on the Somalia Affair, you can judge some of your questions on the sentence given Kyle Brown and where and when he served it.

Huge difference between murder and drug trafficking in my books, sir.

 

[vonGarvin]

Huge difference between murder and drug trafficking in my books, sir.

Not to the eyes of the law.  I believe that both have life as their maximum sentence. (for certain drugs, cocaine included)

 

[George Wallace]

Huge difference between murder and drug trafficking in my books, sir.

Brihard

The comment had nothing to do with the Crime, it had to do with the TIME.

 

[gaspasser]

Obviously another bunch of "new kids" who are getting thru the meat grinder with their lousy attitudes and making all of us look bad in the eyes of the public when we need that support.  Mind you NOT all of the new recruits have shitty attitudes, just some.  
Remember Viet-Nam.

 

[niner domestic]

Garvin: There is a difference.  Murder carries a MINIMUM sentence of LIFE and drug trafficking carries a MAXIMUM sentence of LIFE. 

 

[brihard]

Brihard

The comment had nothing to do with the Crime, it had to do with the TIME.

I understand. I'm simply not going to use the one case to judge the other. Stare decisis only applies between two crimes of a like nature. Justice (or misjustice) in one case has no precedental impact or comparison value to another unrelated crime of a different sort.

Yes, Kyle Brown did get what I would feel is quite a light sentence given his crime. Furthermore, I realize that the law prescribes very harsh penalties for trafficking schedule I substances as in this curent case. I'm simply saying that given the punishing nature of being tossed from the forces, and given that there may be families involved here as well, a stiff sentence beyond two years DB and a dishonourable may not be called for. My argument is based simply on the actual tangible merits of sentencing... Certainly there's no use comparing this case in any fashion to the Somalia affair, even if only to give insight as to the workings of military law.

 

[George Wallace]

OK

Brihard

You still missed my point on the TIME.  It was an example of where the TIME is done.  In this case, a serious offence and charge put the member in DB and followed by Dishonourable Release.  The Max time that one can serve in DB, as HS has pointed out, is two years and then Dishonourable Release.  For a sentence of over two years, the remainder of the time is served in a Federal Institution (after the Dishonourable Release).

 

[brihard]

OK

Brihard

You still missed my point on the TIME.  It was an example of where the TIME is done.  In this case, a serious offence and charge put the member in DB and followed by Dishonourable Release.  The Max time that one can serve in DB, as HS has pointed out, is two years and then Dishonourable Release.  For a sentence of over two years, the remainder of the time is served in a Federal Institution (after the Dishonourable Release).

Sorry for the disconnect.

Yes, I'm well aware that following two years in DB the offender is transferred to a federal pen; 2 years in DB being the max- I was simply assuming that was a given fact known to all on this thread. My apologies for not catching your meaning.

When you said it had to do with the time, I thought you meant the LENGTH of the sentence.

I think we're on the same page now.

 

[vonGarvin]

Garvin: There is a difference.  Murder carries a MINIMUM sentence of LIFE and drug trafficking carries a MAXIMUM sentence of LIFE. 

Good point. Thanks.

 

[vonGarvin]

Obviously another bunch of "new kids" who are getting thru the meat grinder with their lousy attitudes and making all of us look bad in the eyes of the public when we need that support.  Mind you NOT all of the new recruits have shitty attitudes, just some.  
Remember Viet-Nam.

Three of them are corporals.  Even if they were promoted yesterday, that's four years service.  Not at all "new kids"

 

[niner domestic]

Brihard: Not sure where you are getting your information from.  Stare decisis is precedent from a previous ruling that can either be a) case in point, b) considered c) followed d) referred to e) applied  OR  f) distinguished or heck even overruled, or overturned by the superior court.  It is not about a particular crime but particular legal tenents and jurisprudence.  It is about how law is applied, it is about how evidence, witnesses, testimony and burdens of proof are evenly applied. It is about subordinate and superior legislation and doctrines of paramountcy and sentencing discretion and application.  Stare decisis is only binding on subordinate courts of competent jurisdiction -  never binding on superior courts.  It is never about the crime - the actual crime is the basis for the charge which is the basis for the application of the law which is where the precedent is applied to for a varying number of circumstances as mentioned above.  

 

[brihard]

Brihard: Not sure where you are getting your information from.  Stare decisis is precedent from a previous ruling that can either be a) case in point, b) considered c) followed d) referred to e) applied  OR  f) distinguished or heck even overruled, or overturned by the superior court.  It is not about a particular crime but particular legal tenents and jurisprudence.  It is about how law is applied, it is about how evidence, witnesses, testimony and burdens of proof are evenly applied. It is about subordinate and superior legislation and doctrines of paramountcy and sentencing discretion and application.  Stare decisis is only binding on subordinate courts of competent jurisdiction -  never binding on superior courts.  It is never about the crime - the actual crime is the basis for the charge which is the basis for the application of the law which is where the precedent is applied to for a varying number of circumstances as mentioned above. 

Niner- my comment about stare decisis came from Mr. Wallace and I misinterpreting each other. I thought he was trying tot ell me to refer to the Somalia sentencing as a source of potential setencing guidelines in this case being discussed in the thread. I (mis)understood him to be trying to draw a legal precedent from the one to the other. I (mis)understood him to be trying to apply 'like crimes, decided alike' to two unlike crimes.

Given that I was on a different page from him, that particular comment is now null and void.

I certainly understand and grasp everything you just told me- I just goofed the context of what he said to me, and then replied to it with something that makes perfect sense in the context I thought we were discussing. I'll call a 'my bad' on that one.

 

[cplcaldwell]

Interesting discussion.

So much for maximums and minimums. So much for Club Fed vs. KP.

What are the kinds of punishment that could be expected?

Consider, from CBC, "have been charged under military law with trafficking cocaine, ecstasy and marijuana."

Clearly we have individuals present here who have substantial experience in this area, is it inapropriate for a comment in this regard?

Just to make sure, let me state, I firmly believe, the soldiers in question are innocent until proven guilty.

 

[3rd Herd]

Just to make sure, let me state, I firmly believe, the soldiers in question are innocent until proven guilty.

With the involvement of human nature there is and always will be particularly in any professional occupation a thematic outlook based more on the French judicial system of guilty until proven innocent than the traditional Anglo/North American one. As for the differences in sentencing time, there was a very interesting news article (CBC, CTV, Calgary Herald) on the comparison of the United States and Canada. The primary focus was the recent arrest of 3 Canadians (2 from Calgary, 1 from Invermere) who were involved in cross boarder drug shipments. Given the mandatory sentencing in the United States verses the sentencing in Canada, let the Americans have them physically and let us have the seized proceeds from this operation. I imagine there is always a use for a few free helicopters and light aircraft up here.

A second interesting provincial law of interest to this thread is if you have children and are lets say "doing some indoor growing" and the door comes crashing down. First your busted and then Child Services is right behind to grab the kids. Most recently two episodes one in the north east of the city and one in the south east. In addition to the various Federal charges provincial charges of child endangerment were added. Both made the front page of the Herald.

 

[Combat Sailor]

Just to throw this one out there, but who do you think were their major clients? The trafficking is obviously a huge problem, and so those caught doing it should be severely reprimanded (released). I don't know about you but when I signed up the policy was 0 tolerance WRT drugs. So why are we not pursuing the purchasers (military). The PR guys play down the drug problem to the press, but for a 0 tolerance policy, I would say that a 5% testing positive for drugs during pre-deployment screening is quite disturbing. And I am pretty sure that the numbers would be significantly greater if they did a CF wide test. Our problem is that too many people turn a blind eye, and don't want to 'blade' their buddy. I know it sounds cliche but do you want the hopped up guy/girl covering your back. If we want to do something about this, than WE have to do something. Be proactive, and quit turning a blind eye. Just my 2cents. Cheers

 

[Sig_Des]

Drugs destroy lives

Well...That was enlightening.

Drugs do destroy lives, but, if the accused are found guilty, they will have destroyed their own lives in the CF, the stability and respect of their families, and possibly the lives/careers of those that they "serviced".

IMO, there's a difference between people who f'ed up and got addicted, and those that perpetuate. Though I don't have too much respect for those who turn to drugs in the first place. May be harsh, but that's my opinion.

Motivation for pushing? Money...

Bravo Zulu to the investigators.